[Music]
good afternoon and welcome colleagues
invited guests members of the general
public who are following today's
proceedings of the standing Senate
Committee on legal and constitutional
affairs today we continue our
consideration of bill C 16 an act to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and
the Criminal Code with this our last day
of hearings on the bill we will move to
clause by clause consideration tomorrow
with us today for the first hour our
Jordan B Peterson professor psychology
department at the University of Toronto
from the D Jared brown professional
corporation the Jerry Brown lead counsel
thank you gentlemen for being here you
both have up to five minutes for opening
statements and mr. Peterson I believe
you're going to leave up yes sir before
today so I think the first thing I'd
like to bring up is that it's not
obvious when considering a matter of
this sort what level of analysis is
appropriate if you're reading any given
document you can look at the words or
the phrases or the sentences or the
complete document or you can look at the
broader context within which it is
likely to be interpreted and when I
first encountered bill C 16 and its
surrounding policies it seemed to me
that the appropriate level of analysis
was to look at the context of
interpretation surrounding the bill
which is what I did when I went and
scoured the Ontario Human Rights
Commission webpages and examined its
policies I did that because at that
point the Department of Justice had
clearly indicated on their website in a
link that was later taken down that bill
C 16 would be interpreted in within the
president's policy precedents already
established by the Ontario Human Rights
Commission so when I looked on the
website I thought well there's broader
issues at stake here and I tried to
outline some of those broader issues in
the initial you may or may not know I
made some videos criticizing bill C 16
and it's a number of its of
the policies that surrounding it and I
think the most egregious elements of the
policies are that it requires compelled
speech the the Ontario Human Rights
Commission explicitly states that
refusing to refer to a person by their
self-identified name and proper personal
pronoun which is the pronouns that I was
objecting to can be can be interpreted
as harassment and so that's an
explicitly defined in the relevant
policies so I think that's appalling
first of all because there hasn't been a
piece of legislation that requires
Canadians to other a particular form of
address that has particular ideological
implications before and I think that
it's a line that we shouldn't cross then
I think that the definition of identity
that's enshrined in the surrounding
policies is ill-defined and poorly
thought through and also incorrect it's
incorrect in that identity is not and
will never be something that people
define subjectively because your
identity is something that you actually
have to act out in the world as a set of
procedural tools which most people learn
and I'm being technical about this
between the ages of 2 & 4 it's a
fundamental human reality it's well
recognized by the relevance a
developmental psychological authorities
and so the idea that identity is
something that you define purely
subjectively is an idea without status
as far as I'm concerned I also think
it's unbelievably dangerous for us to
move towards representing a social
constructionist view of identity in our
legal system the social constructionist
view insists that human identity is
nothing but a consequence of
socialization which is which and and
there's an inordinate amount of
scientific evidence suggesting that that
happens to not be the case and so the
reason that this is being instantiated
into law is because the people who are
promoting that sort of perspective or at
least in part because the people who are
promoting that sort of perspective know
perfectly well that they lost the battle
completely on scientist
grounds it's impressive in the policies
of the Ontario Human Rights Commission
that sexual identity biological sex
gender identity gender expression sexual
proclivity all very independently and
that's simply not the case it's not the
case scientifically it's not the case
factually and it's certainly not
something that should be increasingly
taught to people in high schools
elementary schools and junior high
schools which it is and it is being
taught I included this cartoon character
that I find particularly reprehensible
aimed obviously at it as it is as
children somewhere around the age of
seven that contains within it the
implicit can the implicit claims as a
consequence of its graphic mode of
expression that these elements of
identity are first canonical and second
independent and neither of those happen
to be the case I think that the
inclusion of gender expression in the
bill is something extraordinarily
peculiar given that gender expression is
not a group and that according to the
Ontario Human Rights Commission it deals
with things as mundane as how behavior
and outward appearance such as dress
hair makeup body language and voice
which now as far as I can tell open
people to charges of hate crime under
Bill c16 if they dare to criticize the
manner of someone's dress which seems to
me to be an entirely voluntary issue so
I think that the Ontario Human Rights
Commission's attitude towards vicarious
liability is designed specifically to be
punitive in it it makes employers
responsible for harassment or
discrimination including the failure to
use preferred preferred pronouns they
have vicarious liability for that
whether or not they know it's happening
whether or not the harassment was and
whether or not the harassment was
intended or unintended and so I'll stop
with that thank you mr. broom I'm a
litigator in Toronto I act in all manner
of commercial and employment disputes
I'm not an academic I live with my
clients in the land of legal reality and
how the law
actually works about two years ago I
began to see claims of discrimination
included in every employment related
court claim my phone now rings weekly
with Human Rights Tribunal matters it
has become a reality for employers
across Canada in August of last year I
became aware of dr. Gordon Pearson he
was discussing what he saw as a
problematic law poorly written that's
when I observed the oddest thing
happening lawyers academic lawyers
important people began to say that he
had the legal stuff wrong nothing
unusual about this bill and they also
said you don't get to go to jail if you
breach of Human Rights Tribunal order
what was happening is they weren't
defending the law but downplaying its
effects now as a practicing lawyer any
time a lawyer and particularly an
academic says look away there's nothing
to see here
it gets my intent way up so I did some
research which could be found in the
brief that I filed in advance of today
it sets out the past the prison on this
I knew as a commercial litigator that
anyone can end up in jail if you breach
a tribunal order it is a simple civil
contempt of court process people go to
jail for this but what about the freedom
of expression issue it's a foundational
issue we all know that section to be the
Charter sets out that everybody has the
fundamental freedoms of thought belief
opinion and expression and we all know
that the government is successfully
restricted freedom of expression over
the years but what if rather than
restricting what you can't say the
government actually mandated what you
must say in other words instead of
legislating that you cannot defame
someone for instance the government says
when you speak about a particular
subject let's say gender you must use
this government approved set of words
and theories the American jurisprudence
clearly defines this is unconstitutional
compelled speech in Canada the Supreme
Court has enunciated the principle that
anything that forces someone to express
opinions that are not their own is a
penalty that is the palette area and as
such alien to the tradition of free
nations like Canada now how does C 16
get us to compelled speech the minister
justices summarize bill C 16 as the
enactment amends the Canadian Human
Rights Act
to add gender identity and gender
expression to the list of prohibited
grounds of discrimination the Department
of Justice website used to say that we
must look to the Ontario Human Rights
Commission policies for definitions on
these terms
Ontario's policies on gender identity
and gender expression are set out in my
brief they state that gender-based
harassment can involve refusing to refer
to a person by their self-identified
name and proper personal pronoun
refusing to refer to a trans person by
the chosen name and a personal pronoun
that matches their gender identity will
likely be discrimination the law is
otherwise unsettled as to whether
someone can insist on anyone
gender-neutral pronoun in particular if
the harasser didn't know or didn't
intend arrest it's still harassment now
why is this important voluntarily Human
Rights Commission is a policy
development creature of the legislature
it creates the policies which interpret
the code but what is most important the
tribunal must follow these policies is
bound by them so the Commission creates
the law on pronouns in Ontario the
policies on pronouns were introduced
into the legal framework after the law
had left the legislature federally the
same process will be followed as the
Department of Justice had said so
a similar guideline will be developed
prai's with the Ontario policies federal
guidelines must be followed by the
federal tribunal the guidelines will
mandate pronouns this will happen after
the bill leaves with Senate mandating
use of pronouns requires want to use
words that are not their own which imply
a belief in or degree meant with a
certain theory on gender if you try to
disavow that theory it can be brought
before the Human Rights Commission for
misgendering or potentially find
yourself guilty of a hate crime to sum
up I'm a subject to gender we're going
to have government mandated speech now
in a finding on the constitutionality of
opposed bill the Department of Justice
said on its website look there's a
variation to this bill that already
exists in most of the provinces I don't
believe that's a robust argument in
favor of constitutionality I would refer
you to the comments of the now chief
justice McLaughlin of the Supreme Court
and the decision of Taylor it's in my
brief the chilling effect of leaving
over broad provisions on the books
cannot be ignored while the chilling
effect of human rights legislation is
likely to be less significant than that
of a criminal prohibition the vagueness
of the law means it may well determine
where conduct
that can legitimately be targeted as a
lawyer on the ground I worry about
poorly drafted poorly drafted law and
its impact on my clients as a Canadian I
worry about Parliament tacitly
authorizing compelled speech the brief I
provided to the committee contains a
comprehensive legal opinion that I
published back in December on c16
there's a table that shows how the
federal Human Rights regime mirrors the
Ontario system in terms of enforcement
of policies and guidelines our wrap-up
sir and finally it includes the case law
that's underpinned the opinion thank you
okay thank you both and we'll begin
questions beginning with a deputy chair
senator Baker thank you Thank You mr.
chairman thank you to the witnesses for
their presentation as the witnesses know
the nine provinces in Canada have the
the provision in their laws including
Ontario and also the words expression as
I recall appears in four or five
provinces so what you are arguing is
against what we already have in law your
reference to the criminality to the
sections of the Criminal Code at our
last meeting
senators way out correctly pointed out
that sections 318 319 starts off by
genocide under the heading genocide the
next heading is public incitement likely
to lead to a breach of the peace and you
know what a breach of the peace is mr.
Broun wilful promotion of hatred these
things are and then there are defenses
listed as you know in that Criminal Code
provision there's several defense if you
honestly believe in what you said is if
you you know the defenses are extensive
in the Criminal Code they've worked well
for can
so what do you have to say about the
facts of what's presently in the
Criminal Code and your reflection that
somehow the genocide heading the heading
on public incitement on willful
promotion of hatred somehow that these
provisions should not be included under
those headings I think I have to be
clear my presentation relates to the
amendments of the Human Rights Code and
not the veteran info and that is in fact
how one like dr. Peterson may in fact
find themselves on the wrong side of
jail and so if you if you've reviewed
the the publication in the opinion I say
that simply by breaching the carrier
post amendment to the to the Human
Rights Act and particularly with
somebody who is deliberately doing so
for instance somebody who's saying I'm
not going to use those words that person
if they are dragged before the tribunal
the Ontario Tribune or the federal
tribunal I've indicated to you already
that the Department of Justice is said
they're going to pass the same guideline
on pronoun and so what I'm suggesting to
you is that if somebody says I'm not
going to use those words are brought
before the tribunal the federal tribunal
and the tribunal then delivers an order
for a payment of a fine and
alternatively a non-monetary remedy ie
cease and desist order
in order to do something to compel them
to do something and that person who's
brought before the tribunal says I'm not
doing that they will find themselves in
contempt of court and prison is the
likely outcome of that process until
they purge the contempt that's what I'm
suggesting
I'm not suggesting to you that that the
amendments to the Criminal Code well I'm
not advocating genocide I guess let's
just say that and my presentation here
is restricted to what I see is the
pronoun policy issue in the compelled
speech issue so it covers the provincial
legislation if you did strongly disagree
with that we've had in place in the
provinces for decades and some
is the policies that were enacted after
it left the legislature and which will
be enacted after this bill leaves this
this committee I would also like to add
the fact that once I made the video
stating that I wouldn't use the Z and
serve pronouns for example which I
regard as part of the ideological
linguistic vanguard the university
lawyers after carefully considering what
I said sent a two letters to cease and
desist in my public utterances because
they believe that not only was I
violating the university standards of
conduct but that I was also violating
the relevant provisions of the Ontario
Human Rights Commission therefore as far
as I could tell vindicating the
statement that I made when I made the
video to begin with which was that the
act of making the video itself was
probably already illegal and they didn't
do that lightly
another provincial law yes senator but
thank you chair and thank you gentlemen
both of you for being here have two
questions one for dr. Peterson right at
the get-go and then one for the two of
you hopefully the chair will indulge me
deliberations of this bill and during
deliberations of this bill we keep
hearing the term respect thrown around
respect is indeed critical in debates of
legislation as sensitive as this and
there are a lot of people here who need
to be reminded that respect works both
ways including people at this committee
dr. Baker or as Senator Baker has
already referred to comments as genocide
I don't think anybody here is promoting
genocide however dr. Peterson can you
comment on the notion of respect where
some of your critics say why can you not
just respect your students just use the
gender-neutral pronouns how do you
respond to that well first of all I'd
have to be convinced that doing so would
do more good than harm and I don't
believe that and I think I'm actually in
a reasonable position to to to justify
my claim I think that the danger that's
intrinsic to the law far outweighs
whatever potential benefit it
produce especially given that there's no
hard evidence whatsoever for any benefit
I would also like to point out that the
people who are promoting this
legislation claim to be acting on the
behalf behalf say of the transgendered
community but they weren't not elective
nor appointed to act as such
representatives and they're doing it on
their own say-so I've received many
letters at least 30 now from
transgendered individuals indicating
that the they are not in accordance with
the claims of these so-called
representatives to be representing or
with the intent of the legislation which
has actually made them more visible
rather than less visible which is and
the less visible is what they had
preferred with regards to respect is
that you don't meet people generally
speaking in a mutual display of respect
you generally meet people in a mutual
display of alert neutrality which is the
appropriate way to begin an interaction
with someone because respect is
something that you earn as a consequence
of reciprocal interactions with that are
dependent on something like reputation
which is also a consequence of repeated
interactions and so the notion that
addressing someone by their self defined
self-identity isn't necessarily an
indication of basic human respect for
them I think is entirely spurious
argument especially given that there's
no evidence that moving the language in
a compelled manner in this direction is
going to have any beneficial effect
we're supposed to assume that just
because hypothetically the intent is
positive that the outcome will be
positive and any social scientist worth
his or her salt knows perfectly well
that that's rarely the case
so dr. Brown you've talked about
non-monetary orders that could include
sanctions like orders to undertake
sensitivity and anti bias training I
would like either one or both of you to
comment on whether you could explain why
an individual may have a strong
objection to undertaking such a training
and mr. Brown could you let the
committee know how serious the sanction
could be and of course you already did
on that if you refuse to undertake such
an order and specifically at the federal
level but what would what why would
people have an objection
to take me sex cream I think I mean like
dr. Peterson answer why he or someone
like him might have an objection to
undertaking that type of training and
I'll deal obviously but once again with
the severity of that decision if it gets
before the tribunal well I have a
profound objection to to undergoing such
training in fact I would flatly refuse
under all conditions to undergo it and
the reason there's multiple reasons for
that the first reason is that the
science surrounding the so called charge
of the implicit bias that's associated
with perception is by no means settled
in it to such a degree that to one of
the three people who designed the most
commonly used measure which is the
implicit association test has detached
himself from the other two researchers
on the grounds that the use of the test
has become as far transcended its
scientific validity and reliability it's
nowhere near valid or reliable enough to
be used in the manner that it's been
using and even the more Pro I 80
researchers to develop the test I have
admitted to that publicly even though
they haven't stressed it nearly to the
degree they showed up so first of all
the sciences is not settled and is being
used
absolutely inappropriately and I can say
that as a clinician because I know that
cannabis psychometrician I know the
criteria for using a test for sex
essentially diagnostic purposes and the
IAT doesn't even come close to what's
necessary then the next issue is well
where is the evidence that that anti
unconscious bias training works there's
no evidence and what little evidence
there is suggests that it actually has
the opposite effect because people don't
like being brought in front of a
reeducation committee and having their
fundamental perceptions you see their
perceptions not even their thoughts but
their perceptions themselves altered by
collective Fiat it's an unbelievable
error sir we have a very engaged
committee concise questions and concise
responses would be a helpful senator
Pratt thank you for being here I want to
quote briefly from a document from the
entire Human Rights Commission says some
people may not know how to determine
what pronoun to use others may feel
uncomfortable using gender-neutral
pronouns generally when in doubt ask a
person how they wish to
address used a if you don't know which
gone on to you this preferred simply
referring to their person by their
chosen name is always a respectful
approach so you can use the pronoun you
can choose you can use their chosen name
so if someone chooses to change his name
from Paul to Peter surely you would use
Peter because it's a matter of simple
politeness and and respect if the same
person person chooses to cheat to change
your name from Paul - Paul oh well I'm
going to use you use the name polo
simply as a matter of respect what's the
difficulty well I guess the issue and
that speak about the legal issue there
is that you're now introducing the full
force of law behind the requirement to
use and I'm dealing obviously with with
respect to the pronoun issue in terms of
not addressing somebody by their by
their legally registered name for
instance I don't think that's where
we're running into trouble here I think
the issue becomes that if you don't you
address somebody by the the pronoun that
they self-identify by as I've read out
to you the fact that the full force of
the law will be behind that person that
that's what I'm finding is troubling in
the legislation but the Ontario Human
Rights Commission gives people the
alternative not to use pronouns and use
the person's chosen name which is always
a respectful default so for nouns are
not necessary are not mandatory you can
always choose the person's chosen name
as a respectful approach and therefore I
are not I'm not aware that anybody that
there is a piece of legislation that
compels you to use my proper name in
other words it once again it's the fact
that the full force of law will be
behind it when we're dealing with the
group being identified in the
legislation and so for instance if I
were not to call you by your chosen name
I'm not sure you'd enjoy the full force
of the law behind you as a result of
that and that's what I'm suggesting to
you is the difference here
I'm just arguing you saying that you
always base whatever you say on what the
entire Human Rights Commission is saying
and I'm quoting from the Ontario
commission document they're saying we're
not bandit mandating pronouns you can
always use the person's chosen name as a
respectful approach I respectfully
disagree but then well I would say then
that's actually an indication of just
exactly how poorly the policy documents
are written because I can quote this one
which which is also from the Ontario
Human Rights Commission website that
says and I quote refute refusing to
refer to a person by their
self-identified name and proper personal
a proper personal pronoun counts
constitutes gender-based harassment and
so if they're if the policies are
written in a coherent manner and there
wasn't internal contradictions then your
statement would be a reasonable
objection but since it's not written
that way and I do believe firmly that
that's a testament to the degree to
which is supporting written set of
policies is it is full of internal
contradictions and that will be worked
out very painfully within the confines
of people's private lives
thank you swing of your butters thanks
very much both of you for being here
first of all dr. Peterson I want to go
back to this issue of personal pronouns
and if you could please tell our
committee more about this issue it's
something that I was not at all familiar
with prior to this bill being introduced
and in particular about the
gender-neutral pronouns and your
experience in pushing back against being
forced to use those general neutral
gender-neutral pronouns well I don't
think the people who initiated this
legislation ever expected that there
would be an absolute explosion of
identities first of all and also of
so-called personal pronouns as there has
been I think Facebook now recognizes
something like 71 separate gender
identity categories each of which in
principle is associated with its own set
of pronouns and so it's become what
linguistically unmet it's become a
parody essentially it's become
linguistically unmanageable and it's
also the case that words can't be
introduced into the language by Fiat I
don't I can't even think of a time when
that's actually work we're not exactly
sure how words enter the common parlance
but it's certainly not that way and so
the the legislation devolves into a kind
of of absurdity as far as
I can tell I mean one of the people that
I discussed this with claimed that the
way that you kept track of someone's
personal pronouns was to use your cell
phone as an adjunct to your
communication and I mean that's you
wouldn't say anything like that if you
knew anything about common human nature
let's say in the manner in which people
communicate with one another so the
types of pronouns you're talking about
just so everyone is clear because I
don't think these are common common
parlance the is there and what other
sorts of gender-neutral pronouns are we
discussing here well I have a very bad
memory for that sort of thing but if
you're interested in it you can find
lists of them very rapidly on the web
and they'd been produced by I think
they've been produced by people whose
essential desire is to gain linguistic
control that's that's that's 'simply is
that I can put it as a gain linguistic
control but they're not used popularly
and and that seems to me to be a it's a
real problem as a consequence that you
make failure to make their use something
that that could carry a criminal penalty
so I just don't understand that and and
I don't understand how the government
can justify imposing a criminal penalty
on the use of words that no one either
knows or uses it just seems preposterous
to me but there it is
could you please also tell us a little
bit more about the your personal
experience in pushing back against this
and I mean many are familiar with your
story but not everyone so I just wanted
to do well I made a video actually made
three videos but we'll just talk about
one of them I made one criticizing Bill
c16 for the reasons that I already
described because I went read the
policies and they made my hair stand on
end to the surrounding policies and so I
made a video stating essentially that
and detailed out my reasons and um you
know I've been following the Battle of
let's say ideologies on campus for a
very long period of time and I suppose I
have some expertise in that and there's
a there's an ideological war that's
ripping at campuses apart and it's
essentially between a ideological
variant that's rooted in what's come to
be known as post-modernism with kind of
the neo-marxist
and and modern modernism I would say
that's accounting for all the turmoil on
campuses and I see this as an extension
of this campus turmoil into the broader
world and and I Reba leave that is the
proper level of analysis I truly believe
that and so I said that I believe that
this is the Vanguard issue in the kind
of ideological war and that I'm not
going to participate on the side of the
people whose whose ideological stance I
find reprehensible unforgivable and
reprehensible especially the Marxist
element of it and so I announced that I
was going to use these words because I
don't believe that they're instantiated
to protect anyone's rights I believe
their that the ideologues who are
pushing this movement are using
unsuspecting and sometimes complicit
members of the so-called transgender
community to push their ideological
Vanguard forward and I firmly believe
that so I'm not participating in that
and the fact that it's potentially
illegal for me not to participate in
that is something that I regard as I
think that's absolutely dreadful it's it
makes it puts a shudder in my heart as a
Canadian that we could even possibly be
in a situation like that you know if the
if the identity claims that are
instantiated and misled in the policy
surrounding this legislation are applied
it's going to be held for the
psychiatrist excuse my language it's
going to be very difficult for the
biologists and the psychiatrists next
and I think we'll see that happening
very soon
Thank You senator Gould thank you and
thank you for being here I've never been
a practicing lawyer I was a
constitutional law professor and I'm a
free speech guy so I appreciate
importance of the issues that are being
raised
I think respectfully they were answered
free speech issues were answered quite
compellingly by my former colleague
Brenda Cosman and testimony before this
committee but I I wanted to make three
points mr. Peterson and their questions
are buried at this point I think I heard
you say that you thought that the harm
to this legislation of ways
good but but but there is the trans
community suffers harm regularly under
discriminated against and whatever else
one might say and worried about human
rights tribunals and and the like this
bill addresses and would take a major
step forward towards reducing harm that
a particularly vulnerable community
experiences second let's see if we could
zero in on where we might agree that
there is nothing in the law that
criminalizes or creates a an offense to
criticise the notion that identity is a
social construct which you do to
criticize the way in which words come
into the language the modern Hebrew is
an example of words coming in by Fiat
and the Academie Francaise does it as
well
or Shakespeare gave us so much of our
language but there's nothing in this
bill that stands in the way of you
taking a principled position against all
aspects of this including your
criticisms of the activists the issue is
the pronoun and unless I'm reading it
wrong senator Pratt pointed out the
Ontario Human Rights Commission policy
does not say that refusing to use a
person's self-identified name or
personal pronoun does constitute
gender-based harassment I may I may be
wrong but I believe it said it could and
I think that's a real difference if I
turn to you and say look please call me
they because that's how I see myself in
it because it's hurtful for you to call
me sir or miss whatever whatever it
would be but you refuse I think all Kate
if you're uncomfortable with that
because you're not comfortable with that
call me mark and you refuse were you to
continue to call me by the name that I'm
telling you is hurtful to me
is that not in fact something that is
that not something that the law can
properly address this is you are
knowingly hurting me
and and in that respect our courts
ultimately I think are capable of
striking a proper balance between people
who slip up or who for whatever reasons
just can't get the words out of their
mouth and those that persist and
intentionally causing community to
respond would you agree with my
characterization of the free speech as
it applies to these issues let me jump
in just on the legal point after dr.
Peterson closed the teens videos and
after he rose to the public
consciousness the Ontario Human Rights
Commission deemed it fit to release a
new policy document called questions and
answers about gender identity and
pronouns and in so doing they said that
refusing to refer to a trans person by
their chosen name and a personal pronoun
that matches their gender identity or
purposely misgendering will likely be
discrimination so I think it's a little
bit more certain than what you may have
indicated in your comment but a lot of
doctor and once again that was but that
policy was was put out after dr.
Peterson began to speak on the issue and
so I think it's very telling that it was
a response if you will to this this this
issue that dr. Peterson raised I can
allow obviously dr. Pearson to go ahead
with the other element of your question
very briefly sir well so I would say
that the very idea that calling someone
a term that they didn't choose causes
them such irreparable harm that legal
remedy should be sought rather than
regarding it as a form of impoliteness
that legal remedies should should be
sought including potential violation of
the hate speech codes is an indication
of just how deeply the culture of
victimization has sunk into our society
okay believe it there senator from
main topic mr. Brown when the Minister
of Justice was before this committee she
said the following
there is nothing within bill c16 that
would compel somebody to have to call
somebody by the pronoun he or she or
otherwise can you comment on preposition
I'd agree with that there is nothing in
the bill but the problem is that in the
the Government of Canada Department of
Justice website they in their questions
and answers section of that website
which was pulled down in December sets
out five of my brief it makes it very
clear that the definitions of the terms
gender identity and gender expression
have already been given by the Ontario
Human Rights Commission the Commission
has provided helpful discussion and
examples that can offer good practical
guidance the Canadian Human Rights
Commission will provide similar guidance
on the meaning of these terms in the
Canadian Human Rights Act now I think
that deviously the legislative intent
and I'll agree with you that the the
bill itself on its face does not seem to
imply any manner compelled speech but
when we're tying it so deliberately and
with this expectation that's where I
think you get into into some trouble we
gave mr. Barrie you spoke about the
chilling effects of overly broad
legislation I'm wondering if you
consider the terms gender identity and
gender expression to be equally broad or
do consider one broader than the other I
think they are overly broad definitions
and and I think the only thing I can
offer as a lawyer and a litigator is
that the courts don't like over broad
terms and I would refer you to the
decision of London blue Sun or the
Alberta Court of Appeal where in that
case the Court of Appeals is the
objective of statutory interpretation is
to discern the legislative intent from
the language of the legislation if
possible and to give it effect to such
intent this objective becomes difficult
to attain where there is conflict
imprecision or a lack of clarity in the
legislation of particularly a particular
concern in the area of human rights law
is that a lack of clarity will cast the
chill on the exercise on the
fundamental freedoms such as freedom of
expression and religion and so well I
personally believe that these that the
terms are not properly or not clearly
defined and and somewhat ambiguous the
courts don't like that type of
legislation either two things with
regards to the chill it's already the
case and I've seen this among my own
students when they're teaching
personality which is what I teach which
also involves assessment of gender
differences between men and women that
the proclivity now is for the advanced
PhD students to avoid any such
discussions in their classrooms because
the potential cost of transgressing
against an unknown norm let's say is so
high that it's just easier to teach
other things and so I've seen that
clearly and with multiple people and I
would also say that it's no trivial
matter that the Department of Justice is
linked to the Ontario Human Rights
Commission and their statements about
how this legislation was going to be
interpreted and mysteriously disappeared
in the middle of December of all the
things that have happened to me that
happened in relationship to this that
I've been studying I think that was the
most chilling so because it was the it
was the what would you say it was the
smoking pistol right because the issue
is what's the right level of analysis he
just supposed to look at the legislation
well since the Justice Department said
no you're supposed to look at the
surrounding policies well that's what I
did and that's what I based my case on
and then all of a sudden the link to
those the link tying those two things
together just vanished and people had to
go into the internet archives to to to
fish it back out so that it could remain
part of the public record
I think that's absolutely scandalous
Thank You senator Almaguer Thank You
Sharon thank you both of you for being
here and I was trying to take notes but
I think I got this right mr. Peterson
that you talked about this bill as being
an expression of vanguard of ideology
and am i right in thinking and well I
was thinking more about the policies
that surrounded it but but yes yeah so
I'm trying to square what you as a party
of one are saying
with published documents from the
Canadian Psychological Association the
American Psychological Association being
Canadian Medical Association the
American Psychiatric Association the
Canadian psychiatry Association and the
United Nations Human Rights access so
these are all you know these are not
parties of one they associated they are
all I imagined lots of psychologists and
members of the Canadian psychology of
the age and the Canadian psychiatrist so
how they describe what you're saying
which is your opinion which you are
absolutely entitled to with what
everyone is ranked plus the feeling and
testimony of the people who have
suffered over 30 years we've been taking
issues to court these are people who
feel it will be listened to so how do we
get a grab it okay well with regards to
your second point if the people that
you're listening to aren't randomly
selected from a population then their
opinions are worthless from the
perspective of testimony because you
don't know if you're dealing with a
biased sample and that's a big problem
with the public consultation process
that underlies this bill and and you can
not appreciate that if you'd like but
it's standard practice in any in any
polling institution or anybody that's
attempting to extract a genuine opinion
out of a so called community of people
and if that isn't followed then you
can't tell if the information that your
program that you're receiving is biased
and this with regards to your first
point what exactly are all those people
who are thinking the same way as me say
you said that there's a bunch of them
and a bunch of groups but you never said
what they're saying
precisely well I think our chair who
drew me on to fourth in fact there's no
you're fun to read out what they're all
saying but in general they say they
oppose discrimination and harassment
because of gender identity and gender
expression and then there's three pages
okay I oppose discrimination against
gender identity and gender expression
that's not the point the point is the
specifics of the legislation that's
around it and the insistence that people
will have to be have to use compelled
speech that's what I'm objecting to
with all sorts of people in my life very
people who don't fit in in all sorts of
different ways I'm not a discriminatory
person there's 500 hours of my teaching
to my classrooms on tape on YouTube but
nobody's found a smoking pistol I'm not
a discriminatory individual but I think
this legislation is reprehensible and I
do not believe for a moment that it will
be what it intends to do I also don't
think that my opinion deviates
substantially from the bodies that
you're describing because you haven't
provided any evidence that they say
anything other than discrimination is a
bad thing and I think that unreasonable
discrimination is a bad thing and it's
unreasonable when people are judged for
any reason other than the specific
competence that they bring to say a
given position it's not in anyone's best
interest that that occurs but I don't
think that you've demonstrated in the
least that the opinions that I'm putting
forward are exist in opposition to the
standard practices a say of my
particular discipline so could you
Mansell could you repeat one more time
your response to Senators gold and crack
but the Ontario Human Rights Commission
has provided what I would say reasonable
alternative to your your objection to
using pronouns well I think it's been
made clear in that in the presentation
so far is that it depends on which part
of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's
policies you read and that's a big
problem I mean that's one of the reasons
I criticized this to begin with was
because when I went through the policies
I could see that they're absolutely
incoherent so for example let me give
you another example so there's an
insistence in the Ontario Human Rights
Commission that sexual preference is an
immutable phenomena which indicates at
least in principle that it's
biologically grounded but on the same by
the same token in exactly the same
policies they presume that sexual
identity gender identity and gender
expression are entirely independent it's
like sorry guys you can't have both of
those because one's a and one's not a
and you can't put those together and
like there's there's endless numbers of
places in the policy surround
surrounding Bill c16 that are
characterized by that kind of logical
incoherency and we watch it going to do
too
people who are transgender who are
making the claim that they were say born
that way at birth which is a strong
claim that's a biological claim it
indicates that there's a direct causal
connection between some biological
phenomena and the expression of a
particular identity it's actually the
strongest defense that people who have
let's call them non-standard sexual
identities or gender identities have to
defend those claims I've to wrap it up
there and move on to Senator woven mr.
Foucault suppose that at all thank you
very much mr. chair I'll leave the time
for our guests to put in their
translation devices thank you very much
for being here my question is for mr.
Peterson do you have interpretation now
sir so I'm still trying to orient myself
a little bit in this bill I'm a little
bit lost in the arguments in this for
and against but some arguments really
struck me because some people said that
without this bill there might be
suicides people would become depressed
transgender people of course and it
seems to me that this is almost an
extreme position that without this bill
there would be an explosion of suicides
and depression so I'd like to ask two a
question as a professor now you work in
the the social sciences you study human
behavior are there studies or statistics
about the consequences that this bill
would have on those people is this bill
would this bill save as many lives and
help as many people as it says well in
principle we would have that information
if the policies that have already been
introduced by the provincial governments
were assessed properly but as far as I
know there's been no no studies
indicating that the introduction of this
legislation specifically has done
anything to modify the the unfortunate
rates of of
depression anxiety and so forth that are
that are characteristic well you could
say often of marginalized groups but
that's a bit of an overstatement so no I
don't that that was part of my original
claim is that there's no evidence that
this sort of legal redress let's say is
going to produce any positive
consequences that are intended and I do
believe that by making the issue let's
say painfully visible that's one way of
thinking about it this actually had the
opposite effect and it's announced it's
very very common and this is something
that's that's well known in the relevant
social sciences that just because you
intend something to happen when you make
a large-scale transformation doesn't
indicate in any matter that that's going
to be the outcome I mean it would be
lovely if things were that simple and I
mean the best social scientists always
insist that you build an outcome
analysis into any into any broad scale
what would you call social intervention
because there's a good chance it'll
backfire there's a high chance of a
backfire so it's all presupposition and
it's based at least in part on the
notion that the transgender community is
a community and that there are voices
that speak for them homogeneous ly and
that this is what they all want and that
will work as intended that to me looking
at this from from the social science
perspective it's it's there's nothing
about it that's credible missing and I
also don't buy the intent so senator
Duke we see what's happened
Thank You mr. chair first of all I'd
like to ask the question mr. Peterson
and perhaps I would also have a question
for mr. Brown my question is as follows
dr. Peterson I'm trying to understand
your position do you see a difference
between the opinions that you express
that you are expressing today on this
issue as part of this public
consultation
and the actions that you take as a
university professor where you are in a
position of authority and power over
your students well first of all I don't
necessarily consider myself in a
position of authority and power I
consider myself in a position of
responsibility those aren't the same
thing so I don't agree with the way that
the question is formulated and I don't
understand what that has to do with my
stance I mean if I believe that the
legislation is going to do more harm
than good and I also firmly believe
which I do that it is more in the issue
of an ideological move than something
that's designed to address the concerns
that it purports to address I would also
like to point out briefly that you know
what should happen when I made that
video and this is relevant to the
question was that like maybe people paid
attention to ten minutes
teach it to it for ten minutes and maybe
it got a newspaper article and it
disappeared but I put my finger on
something that's what I thought and the
fact that this issue hasn't gone away in
nine months quite the contrary it's
exploded not only in Canada but in all
sorts of parts of the world means that I
means to me that I have some evidence
that my choice of level of analysis was
correct and that there's far more going
on here so to speak than the mere
surface issue that we're purporting to
discuss and so I take exception to the
notion that I am somehow abandoning my
personal responsibility to my students
which is something that I believe is in
fact driving what I'm doing I believe
that my obligation of my students
constantly is to tell them what I think
and to make that as informed and careful
an opinion as I can possibly matter
master and that's what I do yeah both
chemical Anika Simoni I think that you
understand that if you come to
participate or to appear before a Senate
committee studying a bill regardless of
what we think of the question that
I mean my question for you is do you
make a difference between your opinion
what you say and the fact that the
University which pays you I believe
unless I'm wrong the university
considers you to be under its legal
responsibilities and so you are in a
situation of authority over your
students and this means that you can
give an A or an F to your students the
components of the legislation I think
that's rolling I'm going to move on in a
cinder McDonald Thank You chair dr. P
signed a car seat for you
the thing that concerns me most of this
legislation is compelled speech I think
that's very concerning this committee
has heard from Megan Murphy who told us
her opposition to this concept of gender
fluid e fluidity because she believes
gender is a social construction doctor
GAD sod also told to the Federation
because of his belief in evolutionary
biology what this shows is that with
bill C 16 we are prematurely shutting
down a discussion on gender and sex and
it's far from cellular appears to be
first settled and in my opinion when we
look to the provincial definition set up
other Commission's
we are enshrining the theory of a gender
spectrum into the law and one of you
commented that's exactly what we're
doing learns and I think I think that
that might even be more dangerous than
in my opinion than the compelled speech
issue because the social constructionist
view gender isn't another opinion it's
just wrong so because and I can I can
tell you why that is fairness okay one
minute to do that if well the
proposition that's instantiated for
example in this particular visual which
is a good representation of the of the
philosophy of the policies is that
there's no causal relationship between
these four dimensions of identity and
that's palpably absurd I mean
ninety-eight percent of people it's
ninety nine point seven
percent of people who inhabit a body
with a given biological sex identified
without biological sex
it's their incredibly tightly linked if
you can't attribute causality to a link
that that's tight that's not in time you
have to dispense with the notion of
causality altogether and then of the
people who identify say as male or
female who are also biologically male or
female the vast majority of them have
the sexual preference that would go
along with that and the gender identity
and the gender expression these these
levels of analysis are unbelievably
tightly linked and the evidence that
biological factors play a role in
determining gender identity is in a word
overwhelming there isn't a serious
scientist alive who would dispute that
now you get you get disputes about it
but they always stem from essentially
from the humanities and as far as I'm
concerned I looked at it very carefully
those arguments are entirely
ideologically driven it's a tenant of
the ideology that identity is socially
constructed and that's partly why it's
being instantiated into law because
there's no way they're going to win the
argument but they can certainly win
let's say the propaganda war especially
by hoisting this sort of reprehensible
advertising information on children and
that's part of the that's part of the
express intent I would add the trans
complainants have been covered under the
existing grounds of sex before the
tribunals across Canada and as Minister
justice said they are bringing this
legislation in as a symbolic gesture and
so yeah I leave it to you to question
what that gesture may be but but this
community has been protected under the
existing grounds that are found in most
the human rights codes across across
Canada on the grounds of sex picked if
you assume original to share mr.
brownlow mr. Peterson D and Justice
Vagner from the Supreme Court in a
seminar at the Ottawa University
in early March of this year which is
couple of months ago stated the
following of course he was not giving a
decision from the bench you know but he
was expressing his views and if you
allow me I will quote him it's short
when the court eventually faces a
question touching on transgender
identity these two preposition will
provide essential frames of reference
first one that identity is not fixed but
changing that's the first proposal and
then the second one that identity is not
innate
but contextual I repeat that identity is
not innate but context to all and of
course I I read that when I try to
understand the implication of this you
know those two binary kinds of elements
that and he says the court so I bet that
he might have spoken to colleagues or
you know the profession generally would
you would you have a quarrel with that
kind of approach to the definition of
transgender reality or if you think that
it's a proper way of approaching legally
the issues because as you forcefully
explain somebody one day might challenge
you know the proposal the policies and
all what could stem from the enactment
of those legislations
so in other words we'll find ourselves
in the court one day and we will have to
our you know to analyze and argue the
case at least taking into account that
references that those references that
justice wagner mentioned not long ago so
oh you you will react to that well I
want to a at first I want to make sure I
understand your question properly so
when the justice said this was he
implying that the identity is not fixed
but it is changing and that identity
wasn't innate and it was contextual or
was he outlining the
thus the the arena within which this
debate might take play nowyou is
essentially it was the unit was another
speech on this century it was more if I
can use an expression that mr. Broun
will understand it was rather an
arbitrary you know in a conference the
conference was about identity but of
course since you know identity is a
topic of comment on you know common
debates in Canada he felt that it was
helpful if he would you know I should
say put his grain of salt in being
England in the public key date by
establishing with he thinks is you know
how to define transgender identity and
established some parameters okay so
let's let's assume that it is changing
and contextual yeah okay then why is
conversion therapy a problem see this is
what see the thing is is that when I
started opposing this bill people
immediately assumed that I was
transphobic and racist and all these
other epithets that they're perfectly
willing to trot forth at a moment's
notice but you know there's been a
tremendous attempt to make conversion
therapy for people who are gay illegal
right and the proposition is predicated
on the idea that the identity the sexual
preference identity is not changing nor
contextual it's fundamental and really
what that means is that it's grounded in
something like biology it's okay fine
let's scrap that okay no it's going to
be changing in contextual okay then why
can't it be changed with context and so
this is part of the problem with the
policies is they're so incoherent that
they're going to work against the people
that they're designed to protect now
people have a hard time believing I care
about that but you know the fact that
I've been called things doesn't mean
that that's what I am so you know a lot
of people who have let's call it a
non-standard identity the tightest
argument they have for public acceptance
of that identity is that it's powerfully
constrained by biological processes that
are beyond their voluntary control
so instantiate this view of humanity the
social constructionist view of humanity
and you can waive those claims goodbye
because they're completely they are at
complete odds with the social
constructionist viewport
and I think that's a big mistake and I
really do believe that that will
backfire hard against the people who
this legislation is designed to protect
if it's mutable changeable only
subjective and and transformable on a
whim then why should anyone have any
respect for it gentlemen I have to
intervene the hour has flown by and we
all very much appreciate your appearance
here today in your testimony as well
thank you we will suspend briefly before
hearing from the next cases
[Music]